I’ve grown tired of discussing ‘omni-theism'(i.e. OT). By ‘omni-theism’, I mean the position that there exists an entity which is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, and all-loving. Even if you want to water down OT, I’m tired of that too. By ‘water down’ I mean a position like- for instance- that there exists an entity that is very powerful, very knowledgeable, very good, and very loving.
One reason I’ve grown tired of discussing OT is dishonest tactics coming from certain theists who make appeals to things like, “God’s mysterious ways”. They are conceding that OT (or ‘God) can’t be falsified. If you were to sit back and honestly ask yourself what universe you would expect if OT is true, then you would come to the conclusion that this is not the universe you would expect on the assumption that OT is true: or, you’d say that OT has no explanatory power.
I’ve also come to the conclusion that not only are some theists (particularly apologists and “philosophers” of religion) completely irrational in maintaining their belief in OT, but they are also acting completely delusional by ignoring all the evidence to the contrary and insisting on things like there being “very strong” evidence for God. No there isn’t. Certainly there is not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. If you want to know the reasons I’ve come to these conclusions, my past posts will educate you. Yes, I am partially venting and ranting in this post; nevertheless, my feelings and frustrations surrounding some theists aren’t without rational and moral justification.
Perhaps I can write about new topics; however, I don’t find myself to be a very entertaining writer. I also am not the best when it comes to grammer, syntax, and so on. But I suppose one could object that this is a blog and not a dissertation. (1)(2)
(1) I’ve also lost interest in discussing ‘supernaturalism’ in general.
(2) I do think it’s important to fight sophistry. It’s also important to teach critical thinking and skepticism–this can’t be emphasized enough.
9 thoughts on “I’ve Grown Tired”
I know exactly what you mean. What you’ve described is precisely why I created The Owner of All Infernal Names.
If you want brain food with a huge hunk of as-yet-to-be-defined philosophy, dive into panpsychism. There’s heaps of research going on, a number of distinct lines of enquiry (IIT/Constructal Law/Tegmark’s 4th state of matter), but I think they’re all circling the same thing.
Circling the drain, I hope, John.
Have you considered the possibility that religious apologists are simply “making room” for ordinary theists to safely exist in? By continuing to advance their bizarre “theories” of how the universe was created and how scripture is “true, true, true!” and how their god is “real, real, real!” they are making a space where the ordinary religious can sit and say, “well they are not talking about us.”
The recycling of bad arguments for the existence of their god for new audiences (of non-believers, not believers) is telling, I think. I can’t believe that all of those apologists are as stupid as this indicates. I don’t think they are preaching to the choir (I used to think this), I think they are preaching for the choir. They keep us busy demolishing zombie ideas that should have been declared dead centuries ago, while the ordinary religious sit out of the wind of ridicule. They are the model for Donald Trump’s School of Distraction (Distract, distract, distract while the minions behind the curtain are manipulating all of the levers of reality).
Yup, I know a big part of apologetics, or most of it, is keeping the flock in Christianity or theism. As you say, the arguments are (many times) beyond terrible to the point where you have to question whether some apologists are sometimes outright lying! It’s hard to chalk it all up to ignorance or stupidity…
Sometimes it’s good to hit reset. Tear everything down to ground level and start over. I hope you find truth and purpose whatever you do moving forward.
Interesting post. Are we to assume you’re an Atheist now? I believe you previously mentioned that you wouldn’t state your personal views on the subject.
Regardless, I can sympathize with your feelings on this. I would advise however before you make some sort of switch, to maybe put together a cumulative case for why you feel the belief in the OT God is false, and you can direct people towards this post if anyone in the future inquires towards the shift in tone.
If a conventional god does exist, so do the requirements of being omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. Not quite OT, but close. It is not an unreasonable position to adopt, but impossible to reconcile with a homophobic view of the multiverses, Evidence, when viewed from this standpoint, comes from the apparent meaning and purpose inherent in all that is.
“A homophobic view of the multiverses”?
To be honest, my reaction from reading some of your posts is that you tend to not deal with the strongest arguments for God. For example, I’ve seen zero posts that deal with the work of David Oderberg or Brian Davies. The former defends realism and critiques naturalism, the latter critiques the POE (including bad theodicies in defense of POE). Heck, you didn’t even address Thomas Nagel’s refutation of naturalism from a few years back, and that book, right or wrong, made national headlines.
As a result, the discussions have grown stale for you, since it’s no fun refuting bad arguments over and over to people on a blog. My guess is that people like Oppy have more fun because they get to publish books and articles on current topics, and don’t have to worry about random internet pastors or infidels. So perhaps consider whether you want to either A. make a serious effort to learn the top literature in the field, and fall in love with philosophy of religion as a career, or B. maybe take a step back and consider what field you might really enjoy instead.